The US Treasury's Office of Foreign Assets Control added Francesca Albanese to its sanctions list on May 27 under the International Criminal Court-related programme. The published entry confirms the administrative action. Its legal setting is clarified by a May 22 order from the US Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit.
In case 26-5172, the appeals court partly paused the district court's May 13 order while it considered the government's emergency request. The temporary order allowed implementation and enforcement of Albanese's designation under Executive Order 14203. It expressly retained a restriction against actions that would violate OFAC licences concerning Massimiliano Cali and the minor child identified as L.C.
That qualification is important to understanding the immediate result. The court did not give an unrestricted direction overriding those licences. Nor did it decide the merits of the government's request for a stay pending appeal. It described the administrative pause as a way to allow time for consideration, with further written submissions scheduled from both sides.
OFAC's general explanation of blocked property helps distinguish sanctions from confiscation. Blocking freezes covered property and restricts dealings; ownership remains with the person concerned. The agency explains that property within the United States or in the possession or control of a US person can fall within these requirements, and that authorisation can permit otherwise restricted activity.
The practical distinction is between possessing an asset in law and being able to use it in a transaction. A freeze can constrain transfers without transferring ownership to the government. That is why the licensing qualification in the court order has operational significance: permissions and prohibitions must be read together, rather than assuming that a list entry answers every transaction question.
The two primary records therefore establish different things. OFAC documents the May 27 designation, while the appellate order identifies the temporary authority and its limits. Reading them together avoids treating an immediate enforcement step as a final judicial endorsement. As of this historical account, the court had created an interim arrangement while the contested legal process continued.
